DFW wants controversial reservoir. Northeast Texans hope new study will build opposition

Kevin Ward anticipated a larger turnout.

As the chair of the Dallas-Fort Worth regional water planning group for many years, Ward has seen rooms filled with hundreds of northeastern Texans, vocally opposing the plan to inundate 66,000 acres of hardwood forest to construct the vast Marvin Nichols reservoir along the Sulphur River.

He remembers engaging with some of the adversaries, sharing meals and discussing the rationale behind the North Texas water planners’ belief in the necessity of the Marvin Nichols reservoir to meet the water demands of the area’s burgeoning population.

The reservoir was a topic at the Arlington water planning meeting on November 6, but the time for public input passed without much ado.

Ward, who is also the general manager of the Trinity River Authority, expressed his surprise: “I’d have thought we’d have a more robust discussion. I don’t know in the long run how this will work for them, if it will ever get built. That’s going to be up to a lot of factors going forward. We don’t even know if we’re going to have it in the (future) water plan yet.”

The proposal faces extensive backlash, primarily due to concerns about residents being compelled to sell their properties to the state via eminent domain and its potential repercussions on the local timber industry.

Following a mandate from the Texas Legislature, the long-standing controversy surrounding the reservoir’s capability to fundamentally transform northeast Texas is advancing to its next phase.

The Texas Water Development Board is set to assess the Marvin Nichols project’s viability, focusing on its timeline, cost, land acquisition needs, and its economic effect on the region. The construction of the reservoir is projected to cost $4.4 billion.

“We consider this feasibility review to be an important step,” said Janice Bezanson, senior policy director for the environmental advocacy group Texas Conservation Alliance. “This really matters in terms of building that understanding that this is not the way to go, and we need to be figuring out the best way to go without considering taking this much land out of production and taking this much land away from the current owners.”

The Texas Water Development Board is scheduled to present a report to the Legislature and Governor Greg Abbott by January 5, 2025, coinciding with the start of that year’s legislative session. The agency is open to receiving “meaningful input” from the public, along with relevant documents, until December 1, 2023.

Those against the Marvin Nichols reservoir are hopeful that this will increase awareness and legislative resistance to the project, initially proposed in the 1960s. The Dallas-Fort Worth 2021 water plan aims for the reservoir’s completion by 2050, but the northeastern planning group advises considering other options first, such as alternative water sources and conservation efforts.

Given the lengthy process of securing federal permits, local project advocates, including the Tarrant Regional Water District, need to initiate proceedings soon to meet the 2050 target date for the reservoir.

The project requires not just the 66,000 acres for the reservoir itself, but an additional 130,000 acres to compensate for wildlife habitat loss and to comply with federal standards.

Janice Bezanson, a member of the Preserve Northeast Texas steering committee, an opposition group formed in 2021, believes there’s still a chance to avert this development.

She points out that the average resident in Dallas-Fort Worth may not fully grasp the significant impact the Marvin Nichols project has on property owners near Mount Pleasant. Bezanson notes that for many North Texans, the convenience of readily available tap water means they seldom question its source.

“But the people in the Dallas-Fort Worth area are not going to want to cause these impacts if there’s any other way to do it,” she said. “You’re taking people’s homes and you’re destroying an entire river watershed to water lawns in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. And there are better ways to do that.”

Bezanson’s group advocates for alternative water management strategies, such as increasing underground water storage, expanding water reuse, and emphasizing water conservation in North Texas.

Yet, Ward remains adamant that to support the region’s rapid population growth, another reservoir is essential, with Marvin Nichols being the prime candidate to fulfill this requirement.

Ward acknowledges that the upcoming feasibility study is unlikely to bridge the divide between the differing regional perspectives. At their November 6 meeting, the Dallas-Fort Worth water planners decided to submit their prior analyses of Marvin Nichols, including assessments of its economic implications, expenses, and projected timeline, to the Texas Water Development Board.

They also urged the state to acknowledge the potential economic drawbacks of not addressing North Texas’s water demands. Proponents of Marvin Nichols highlight the economic benefits it could bring, such as the creation of waterfront properties and new recreational facilities.

Ward is also waiting for a verdict from the local project sponsors — the Tarrant Regional Water District, the Upper Trinity Regional Water District, and the North Texas Municipal Water District — on whether to proceed with the Marvin Nichols initiative.

These organizations are currently evaluating the base amount of water the reservoir would provide and whether the anticipated output justifies the costs involved. Ward expects a decision on this matter by the following spring.

“That’s why we haven’t engaged in any coordination with us and the other regions, because I don’t want to get engaged in any coordination on something that may never occur,” Ward said. “I don’t know what these folks want to do yet. They haven’t decided, so we’re just waiting.”

In the meantime, Bezanson wants to keep Marvin Nichols front of mind for legislators and the general public. While property owners in the reservoir area would be paid for their land, northeast Texans never want to see that prospect become a reality, she said.

“It reaches into every aspect of society to do a project this massive,” Bezanson said. “How do you compensate someone for having the home they grew up in destroyed and being forced to move out of it? How do you compensate somebody for the fact that the cemetery where their grandparents are buried is now under water? There’s no compensating for that.”